Renewable Energy + Battery Storage = Fossil Fuels Obsolete, Even Natural Gas

doublejj

doublejj

Well-Known Member
My solar well pumps water all day long from sunup to sundown using nothing but the sun to produce 1000's of gallons of clean water, with no need for gas, coal, or grid power and no risk of radiation......I'll take the suns advantages for 1000 Alex...
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
doublejj said:
Yeah nothing to see here, situation normal fukishima.....
Click to expand...
doublejj said:
Nagasaki......
Click to expand...
on of those things is not like the other one......

the fukishima picture shows damage to the building from a hydrogen gas explosion

the nagasaki picture is an actual nuclear bomb......

do you have to practice in being so ill informed?


heres some pictures from the tsunami that actually killed people

they look much closer to nagasaki and yet people still live next to the ocean






 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
doublejj said:
My solar well pumps water all day long from sunup to sundown using nothing but the sun to produce 1000's of gallons of clean water, with no need for gas, coal, or grid power and no risk of radiation......I'll take the suns advantages for 1000 Alex...
Click to expand...
that solves running a country how excatly??
 
doublejj

doublejj

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
on of those things is not like the other one......

the fukishima picture shows damage to the building from a hydrogen gas explosion

the nagasaki picture is an actual nuclear bomb......

do you have to practice in being so ill informed?


heres some pictures from the tsunami that actually killed people

they look much closer to nagasaki and yet people still live next to the ocean






Click to expand...
Yep the earth is a living planet......it WILL do this again. Maybe we should learn from our mistakes and NOT repeat them.....Sh*t happens so lets not set ourselves up for a worse outcome buy adding nuclear fallout to the disaster.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
oh come on now seriously??

a nuclear reactor is not the same thing as a nuclear bomb

they wont ever detonate like a nuclear bomb would

earthquakes and tsunamis like what happened at fukishima are a very slight risk

people still live next to the coast even tho this century hundreds of thousands of people have died because of tsunamis

people still live on earthquake zones even though earthquakes have killed hundreds of thousands of people

fukishima killed nobody yet for some strange reason you think thats the thing you need to be scared of
Click to expand...
Surely you don't suggest that Fukishima is just an anomaly and that particular design and class of nuclear power plant is worth the risk, do you?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
TacoMac said:
There's a good reason for that: the design was changed several times.

Originally, it was supposed to be a standard power plant much like the other nuclear plants designed and built in the 60's. Then it went to an upgraded design that was a bit more efficient. Then there was a complete halt at the federal level of all nuclear plant construction. By the time that was undone years later, they had to go back and redo a great deal of work that sat out in the weather rusting the entire time.

Then by the time they got that back up to speed, there was another moratorium handed down by the Federal Government. By the time that expired, they decided to upgrade the plants to a molten salt reactor.

The problem isn't the construction. The problem is all the politics with it's on again off again on again battles primarily caused by big coal and big oil. They don't want nuclear power plants coming in and making them obsolete. They want nuclear on the sidelines until they sell every single pound of coal and gas they have no matter what the costs are to the environment or humanity.
Click to expand...
Nope

The problem is safety and the cost of addressing a fundamentally unsafe design.

Japan is trying to figure out how to wean themselves off of their nuclear power grid because the cost of that power after making the necessary upgrades makes it noncompetitive.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Surely you don't suggest that Fukishima is just an anomaly and that particular design and class of nuclear power plant is worth the risk, do you?
Click to expand...
fukishima was certainly an anomaly considering it was a double whammy of one of the biggest earthquakes ever recorded then a tsunami

fukishima was a very old reactor and whilst the design held up very well considering what it went through i would not say that design should be the ones we build now

we can build reactors that would never meltdown no matter what earthquakes or tsunamis hit them

those ones are certainly worth the risk to get us off of fossil fuels and fast
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
doublejj said:
Yep the earth is a living planet......it WILL do this again. Maybe we should learn from our mistakes and NOT repeat them.....Sh*t happens so lets not set ourselves up for a worse outcome buy adding nuclear fallout to the disaster.
Click to expand...
the fallout from fukishima was minimal that link you posted about radioactive plumes destroying the west cost was bullshit

we can build reactors now that would never melt down

of and that part where most of the earth that doesnt lie on an earthquake zone or at risk of tsunamis can be used
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
doublejj said:
No need to mine any clean coal for my water.....or soldiers to protect foreign oil fields....= cleaner air and a safer country....
Click to expand...
just wondering the water your pumping out of the ground... its not from fossil aquifers is it?

you are in california right?
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
doublejj said:
I know what a geiger counter is....radiation is radiation no matter where is started from, it doesn't discriminate...
Click to expand...
Have you ever used a Geiger counter?

You do understand that we are constantly being bathed in radiation.
Banana'a are radioactive. Sea water is radioactive. You are radioactive..

Large doses are dangerous but your statement makes no sense...
 
doublejj

doublejj

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
Have you ever used a Geiger counter?

You do understand that we are constantly being bathed in radiation.
Banana'a are radioactive. Sea water is radioactive. You are radioactive..

Large doses are dangerous but your statement makes no sense...
Click to expand...
Yes I own one....and I occasionally drink water and large doses are dangerous. I guess I'm a risk taker. I'll take solar energy any day. I pay extra to my power company to enroll in their green energy program so they only use my payments for green energy sources and to help fund our solar array program. You are what u eat....
 
Last edited:
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
choomer said:
It does if you use VAWT instead of HAWT technology.

Both soaring birds and wind turbines like windy areas for the same reasons.
Birds have had that reason for millennia. Wind turbines have had it for decades at the most.

I'm just saying that using a different technology could allow both to share the same optimal environment.
Could you please explain how VAWT tech would endanger the birds?
Click to expand...
Shit is still spinning fast, even if it's on a vertical axis. If there's such a thing as a bird safe wind turbine, I have yet to see it. That said, no one would be a bigger fan of such tech than me because we need the power and we need to take care of our planet with all its inhabitants.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
it is still a drop in the ocean as to what is needed. im all for things like solar roofs and stuff

but roof top solar PV is one of the most inefficient ways to get power

when i said you would need the entire state of arizona that would need to be solar thermal towers and heliostats

you could probably at least double that area for just solar roof top.

saying you can fill the shortfall from what ever other method you want but the shortfall is still the majority of your power needs

and the whole point of this thread was to try to pretend that everything is all sorted and a couple of batteries and solar panels later we wouldnt need coal or gas or nuclear.


and it simply isnt sorted yet
Click to expand...
Wherever you're getting your info from is bad at math. It certainly would not require turning Arizona into one big solar farm.

Also, retrofitted rooftop solar is not less efficient; it's just more expensive to install, thus making for a longer ROI. This is an important distinction, because homes designed with solar from a clean sheet do not have that retrofit cost issue and therefore are much more cost effective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top